Better videos... Human Origins

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Better videos... Human Origins

Unread postby tholden » Sat May 10, 2014 6:05 pm

Hardware and software both better than the last time I tried to do anything like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KipG79p ... fLFDN7W8WA
tholden
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Better videos... Human Origins

Unread postby tholden » Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:26 am

Videos available for Ganymede Hypothesis:

15-minute intro to the hypothesis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KipG79pXc84

The human/hominid disconnect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UELi57CJulA

The Nature of Ganymede: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtdDV1D ... fLFDN7W8WA
tholden
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Better videos... Human Origins

Unread postby spark » Sat Aug 09, 2014 2:58 am

User avatar
spark
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:36 am

Re: Better videos... Human Origins

Unread postby tholden » Sat Aug 16, 2014 8:51 pm



Pye was totally correct in claiming that humans could not be native to this planet. The basic idea in watching his videos is to watch up to the point at which he starts talking about "Annunaki", and then turn the video off.
tholden
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Better videos... Human Origins

Unread postby spark » Sun Aug 24, 2014 12:27 pm

The Anunnaki Lloyd Pye refers to are most likely these guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX08YcLr-k8
they built all those megalith structures and pyramids long ago.
https://www.youtube.com/user/brienfoerster
User avatar
spark
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:36 am

Re: Better videos... Human Origins

Unread postby jtb » Thu Nov 20, 2014 3:45 am

It appears in the video that he is asking the question: "What came first, the chicken or the egg; the man or the DNA". It also occurred to me that perhaps life was created by an electrical z-pinch. The twisted filaments of Birkland currents appear very similar to the twisted filaments of DNA. Perhaps the chicken and the egg, the man and the DNA, were created and made simultaneously.

Creation implies imagination and design which requires a designer. Making something is simply following the blueprint or design. The chicken is the finished design; the egg is the blueprint; some form of external energy and work is necessary to implement, or construct the chicken. An architect, raw material, and a construction company are necessary to make a chicken.
jtb
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Better videos... Human Origins

Unread postby Vecta3 » Sun Aug 30, 2015 1:19 am

More than most likely we did not evolve from primates and there is no evidence we did, only evidence we didn't...and the common ancestor hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. Even if it is presented as quasi fact. As for coming from another planet, it could be but I'm in no way convinced. Life is specific to location, in the general and local sense. If Mars were further away, all life on Earth would change. If we were further from the sun we'd be different. So what came from another planet? If we did it didn't look like us unless it's saolar system was identical. Humanoid upright is the result of gravity and levity which is on every stellar body. Perhaps life is an inherent result of those forces like fish are the result of water?
With a Silent Mind: Krishnamurti- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d3FoZ55wSw
If you understand the problem then the answer will come out of it as the answer is not separate from the problem.
User avatar
Vecta3
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 8:30 am

Re: Better videos... Human Origins

Unread postby chrimony » Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:01 pm

Vecta3 wrote:More than most likely we did not evolve from primates and there is no evidence we did, only evidence we didn't


Uh huh. No relation?

hairless_chimp.jpg
hairless_chimp.jpg (40.46 KiB) Viewed 4969 times
hairless_gorilla.jpg


...and the common ancestor hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis.


It's a hypothesis with a mountain of evidence behind it: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Better videos... Human Origins

Unread postby Vecta3 » Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:16 am

chrimony wrote:
Vecta3 wrote:More than most likely we did not evolve from primates and there is no evidence we did, only evidence we didn't


Uh huh. No relation?


Science itself has proven that we are NOT related to any living, dead or fossilsed primate. So, as far as we know, the chimps pictured in your post are not a relation to humans. Simlarity doesn't make it so either.

hairless_chimp.jpg
hairless_gorilla.jpg


...and the common ancestor hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis.


It's a hypothesis with a mountain of evidence behind it: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


It's a hypothesis that you believe to be a fact. Can you show it in simple plain English that the layman can understand? The link provided strikes me as bamboozling tactic. If we have dinosaur fossils, which supposedly came before humans, then why no missing link fossil? The previous one's presented always end up as primate or human but that rarely gets the headlines. Why isn't there actual, concrete genealogical, or other, definitive proof? There should be yet it'll never surface.

Creationism is not the only other alternative. I do think the creationists have enabled the topic to be scientifically dissected even if their ultimate conclusions are not what I would come to. But then conclusions prevent enquiry anyway...unless they're absolutely obvious and proven, which this, whilst it should be, isn't. Hedging and fudging to fit a model. Never mind how clever the link likes to tries and sound it offers zilch actual proof where there should be plenty. Why? How can that be? Are you even asking these questions?

Forbidden Science - Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory of Evolution https://youtu.be/7Wr-lXLGCxQ
With a Silent Mind: Krishnamurti- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d3FoZ55wSw
If you understand the problem then the answer will come out of it as the answer is not separate from the problem.
User avatar
Vecta3
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 8:30 am

Re: Better videos... Human Origins

Unread postby chrimony » Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:42 am

Vecta3 wrote:So, as far as we know, the chimps pictured in your post are not a relation to humans. Simlarity doesn't make it so either.


What is your explanation, then, for the similarities?

It's a hypothesis that you believe to be a fact.


I didn't say it was a "fact". I said it was a hypothesis with a mountain of evidence behind it. I disagree when evolution is presented as a "fact", but I also disagree when it is presented as "just a theory" or "hypothesis" in a dismissive way.

Can you show it in simple plain English that the layman can understand? The link provided strikes me as bamboozling tactic.


On the one hand, you claim, "Science itself has proven that we are NOT related to any living, dead or fossilsed primate." On the other, when presented with scientific evidence, you complain it's too scientific to understand and dismiss it. This video presents much of the same evidence and is easier to understand. Pay particular attention to the DNA evidence.

If we have dinosaur fossils, which supposedly came before humans, then why no missing link fossil?


You can find plenty of transitional fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... ermediates

The previous one's presented always end up as primate or human but that rarely gets the headlines.


Arguing about minor transitions isn't very interesting to me. The creationists often like to say species can differentiate via natural selection, but they are of the same "kind", and it's the major jumps between species that can't happen, such as going from a land mammal to a whale. By creationist standards, humans are of the same "kind" as apes, but they'll never admit to that.

Forbidden Science - Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory of Evolution https://youtu.be/7Wr-lXLGCxQ


Most of that video is fluff with a few anomalies thrown in to cast doubt, but does not address the mountain of evidence for evolution. But to go back to the whale, the presenter in your video makes the same argument as creationists 12 minutes in. He says, "No Darwinist today would be rash enough to stand up and say that a bear can turn into a whale. ... The idea is unsupported by evidence today just as it was in Darwin's day when he removed the example from his book."

And yet there's fossil, DNA, and vestigial evidence that the whale evolved from a four-legged mammal (not a bear, but a hippo being the closest living relative by DNA), which is exactly what you'd expect from evolution and common descent.
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Better videos... Human Origins

Unread postby jtb » Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:30 am

chrimony wrote: Vecta3 wrote:
So, as far as we know, the chimps pictured in your post are not a relation to humans. Simlarity doesn't make it so either.

What is your explanation, then, for the similarities?

Similarities suggest variations of a common design. A design requires a Designer.
jtb
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Better videos... Human Origins

Unread postby jtb » Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:39 am

chrimony wrote:And yet there's fossil, DNA, and vestigial evidence that the whale evolved from a four-legged mammal (not a bear, but a hippo being the closest living relative by DNA), which is exactly what you'd expect from evolution and common descent.


I agree. The idea of a 2 ton hippo turning into a 70 ton whale is exactly what I would expect from an evolutionist. The similarities are obvious. Also, plankton is much healthier than grass.
jtb
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Better videos... Human Origins

Unread postby chrimony » Tue Sep 01, 2015 8:48 am

jtb wrote:Similarities suggest variations of a common design. A design requires a Designer.


Evolution doesn't need a designer, and similarities (extreme in the case of humans, chimps, and gorillas) indicate common descent, which also matches the DNA analysis as indicated by viruses and other mutations that allow us to trace back ancestors.

I agree. The idea of a 2 ton hippo turning into a 70 ton whale is exactly what I would expect from an evolutionist. The similarities are obvious. Also, plankton is much healthier than grass.


And I'd expect a creationist to reply with a flippant comment while ignoring the fossil, vestigial, and DNA evidence, as well as all features that make a whale a mammal. And just to be precise, it's not claimed that the hippo turned into a whale, only that the hippo is the closest species that alive today that shared a common ancestor.
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Better videos... Human Origins

Unread postby Vecta3 » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:31 pm

But the choice is not just between creationism and evolution. Also, emphatic as you put, there is still no proof that man evolved from primates. So how you can speak to others as if they have two heads doesn't really add up to me, but hey. Evidence in favour of is still not proof. Really, it should be easy to prove if it were so. Why is it not concrete? It's a fair question.
With a Silent Mind: Krishnamurti- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d3FoZ55wSw
If you understand the problem then the answer will come out of it as the answer is not separate from the problem.
User avatar
Vecta3
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 8:30 am

Re: Better videos... Human Origins

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Tue Jan 26, 2016 2:28 pm

Vecta3 wrote:But the choice is not just between creationism and evolution. Also, emphatic as you put, there is still no proof that man evolved from primates. So how you can speak to others as if they have two heads doesn't really add up to me, but hey. Evidence in favour of is still not proof. Really, it should be easy to prove if it were so. Why is it not concrete? It's a fair question.

Darwin never said that man evolved from primates. What he said was that primates and humans evolved from the same progenitor. Given that , according to Darwin, everything evolved from the same origin one could make a similar comment vis a vis humans and oak trees.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Next

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest